The Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries) (Volume 1)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
The Colloquia are manuals written to help ancient Greeks and Romans get around in each other's languages; they contain examples of how to conduct activities like shopping, banking, visiting friends, hosting parties, taking oaths, winning lawsuits, using the public baths, having fights, making excuses and going to school. They thus offer a unique glimpse of daily life in the Early Roman Empire and are an important resource for understanding ancient culture. They have, however, been unjustly neglected because until now there were no modern editions of the texts, no translations into any modern language, and little understanding of what the Colloquia are and where they come from. This book makes the Colloquia accessible for the first time by combining a new edition, translation and commentary with a ground-breaking, comprehensive study of their origins. It is clearly written and will interest students, non-specialists and professional scholars alike.
explanation is available, for example namque hoc comperi in Samnio, uti . . . possideri (Hyginus Gromaticus 181, p. 95 Thulin). Under these circumstances, and given the unanimity of both M and E manuscripts in preserving the lectio difficilior infinitive (the only sources to offer a subjunctive are Beatus Rhenanus and a later corrector of A, both of which clearly obtained it by emendation), it seems to me that emendation to the subjunctive is not justified. 1e ἑρμηνευματικοῖς: M’s reading is
someone who has obviously just arrived would be peculiar in the extreme, as would the reply ‘I have come.’ Greetings using a term meaning ‘good day’ are prominent features of modern Romance languages (French bonjour, Italian buongiorno, etc.) and of modern Greek (καλημέρα), but they are completely unattested in ancient literature, both Greek and Latin. In the West this type of greeting is a modern rather than a medieval development: bonjour for example is only attested from the seventeenth
but it is an obvious equivalent for ambulo, particularly as περι- and ambare more generally equivalent. 6e ὀστιάριος/ostiarius: E reads θυρωρός/ianitor, and previous editors preferred E’s reading for the Greek (but not the Latin), presumably on the grounds that ὀστιάριος was not attested in Greek and θυρωρός is well attested in classical authors. Now, however, it turns out that ὀστιάριος was in fact a Greek word, albeit a post-classical one (first attested in P.Flor. 71.518, fourth century; see
different versions of the Hermeneumata and what is found in each can be summarized as follows: Hermeneumata Monacensia (M) (Goetz 1892: 119–220): This version contains an alphabetical glossary, capitula, and two colloquia (one at the beginning and one at the end); 40 17 Dionisotti has also made a nine-version classification (1988: 27–8), which is slightly different from Korhonen’s (the Fragmentum Parisinum is classed with the Stephani version) and on which my own classification given below is
Pintaudi’s claim (1977: xv) that this reading is found in D, on the grounds that this section of Latin does not appear in D except as interlinear glosses. But it definitely does appear, on folio 292v; Sicherl must have failed to find the relevant page (an easy mistake to make in dealing with D). 78 There are other examples of this phenomenon in the glossary, for example in the first section the Greek for fas is corrected from θέμιτον to θεμιτόν in A (folio 20v), and in D has no accent but an X